I assumed "strip mining" would be understood metaphorically not literally - apparently not.

Welcome to Internetsville!

What's understood and what's subverted are two vastly different things; without a little subversion folks would realise that they are often broadly in agreement, and what fun would it be to write about that? +1 would then become an emotive, provocative statement.

And where more strongly than in photography, where the reality is that a photograph is either good or it sucks; there is no middle ground. But, if you accept that truth, then what's left to say about the thing, and when the saying becomes the point of the interchange of opinions, the truth, the worth of the picture becomes secondary.

I assumed "strip mining" would be understood metaphorically not literally - apparently not.

Quite right. I do not understand your metaphorical use of strip mining. Why don't you enlighten me. I'm here to learn. Are you using it perhaps as a metaphor for general environmental degradation?

I live in a country where pollution is taken seriously and many proposed projects do not get the go-ahead for environmental reasons. Strip mining is an eyesore, but the fact that it takes up such a tiny percentage of the surface area of the country helps get things into perspective.

...we learn daily of the collapse of fisheries; the depletion of soils; thecontamination of groundwater, freshwater and soils; the death of lakes;the destruction of Earth's ozone shield; the slow poisoning of entirelandscapes by chemicals produced through research; the acceleration ofdeforestation; the extinction of thousands of species; global warming;the increasing misery of people in impoverished countries; the dramaticincrease in ecological refugees fleeing ravaged lands.

With the full knowledge of influential governments and corporations,millions of species, natural ecosystems and dozens of the planet'secological processes are being degraded, weakened or eliminated.

Novel chemicals such as hormones and pesticides are being deliberatelyadded to the human and pet food supply. Genetically modified foods arewidely used in food production without public consent.

"Changes to Earth's biodiversity have occurred more rapidly in the past50 years than at any time in human history, creating a species lossgreater than anything since a major asteroid impact wiped out thedinosaurs."

That's the conclusion of Global Biodiversity Outlook a report releasedby the US CIA on Biological Diversity.

"In effect, we are currently responsible for the sixth major extinctionevent in the history of the Earth, and the greatest since the dinosaursdisappeared, 65 million years ago," the report states.

THE WIDE-RANGING REPORT CONCLUDES THAT DEMAND FOR RESOURCES GLOBALLYEXCEEDS THE BIOLOGICAL CAPACITY OF THE EARTH BY SOME 20 PERCENT.

Among the findings:

The average abundance of species declined 40 percent between 1970 and2000 while species in rivers, lakes and marshlands have declined by 50percent.

52 percent of species within well-studied higher taxa including birds,mammals and amphibians are threatened with extinction.

In the North Atlantic, populations of large fish have declined 66percent in the last 50 years.

Since 2000, 6 millionhectares of primary forest have been lost annually.

In the Caribbean,average hard coral cover declined from 50 percent in the lastthree decades.

35 percent of the world's mangroves have been lost inthe last two decades.

Corvus,That's an excellent example of the sensationalised reporting that I mentioned in my previous post. It's alarmist to the point where one cannot separate the metaphor and rethtoric from the facts. The following BBC News item gives some insight into the problem. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17826898

It's a great pity really that such major issues are treated in such a sensationalized manner, because what then tends to happen is that those who have some understanding of scientific processes become skeptical, and the people promoting the issues tend to lose credibility.

The current fiasco with regard to human induced global warming is a great example. It seems, in my opinion, that in order to get public acceptance of a possible problem, distortions, inaccuracies and sensationalism have prevailed. I get a sense of a significant 'selection bias' occurring in the reportage, which of course all good scientists should be fine-tuned to detect.An example of 'selection bias' would be the initial graphs of global warming that were presented in such a way as to obscure the fact that around a 1,000 years ago we had a similar period of warming known as the Medieval Warming Period. The graph has become notoriously known as the Hockey Stick, which I suspect may be just one glaring example like the tip of the iceberg, to use a metaphor.

I've heard claims from certain Climate Scientists that it is not known whether the MWP was a global phenomenon, or mainly a regional phenomenon. Other scientists claim that the current warming is more rapid than at any time during the past 20 million years.

Do you see the problem? If we are not sure to what extent the MWP was a global phenomenon, then are we not likely to be even less sure how our current warming period stacks up against the 200,000 segments of 100 year periods stretching back into the past?

If we are to solve a problem, it must be clearly defined in an unbiased way. Confusion reigns when people are the subject of a natural disaster, such as a major flood or cyclone, and are told that such disasters can be blamed on global warming. The real reaon why people lose their houses in floods is because the house was unwittingly built in a flood plain, and the authorities who approved the plans, no doubt in the interests of economic development, were perhaps not even aware of the history of flooding in the area.

I'm led to believe that a far greater number of species exist below the the soil surface than above it. I've heard reports that a mere handful of good soil contains more DNA than the entire human body.

Clearly we hold radically different value systems with very different perceptions of reality.Let's leave it at that and spare ourselves and others on the forum all the sturm und drang of yet another long, extended, sterile debate that will go nowhere.

Let's get back to discussing something we are, apparently, good at like how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin?

"And where more strongly than in photography, where the reality is that a photograph is either good or it sucks; there is no middle ground. But, if you accept that truth, then what's left to say about the thing, and when the saying becomes the point of the interchange of opinions, the truth, the worth of the picture becomes secondary.

Rob C"

Sounds like you are talking more about opinion than criticism.Good thoughtful criticism can be an art form in it's own right getting close to that middle ground where the "truth and worth" of a image is found.

"And where more strongly than in photography, where the reality is that a photograph is either good or it sucks; there is no middle ground. But, if you accept that truth, then what's left to say about the thing, and when the saying becomes the point of the interchange of opinions, the truth, the worth of the picture becomes secondary.

Rob C"

Sounds like you are talking more about opinion than criticism.Good thoughtful criticism can be an art form in it's own right getting close to that middle ground where the "truth and worth" of a image is found.

Can't buy into that, I'm afraid. "Good, thoughtful criticism" is opinion - it can't be anything else because it stems from the mind of someone who thinks he knows better than the person who made the image. At best, it's second-guessing, pure and simple, and any fool can do it, even I. In some other applications than in art it's known as being wise after the event.

If anything, the professional sayer of sooths, the critique-monger, is but another hurdle in the way of the struggling artist. But, could that same person be brought on-side, he becomes a great selling aid to the 'artist'...

Were Jesus walking the streets today, I think he'd throw them all into the pit along with the money-changers.

And the question that is now popping up in my head is what will Leica and the makers of other "premium" lens brands do to counter the increase in IQ from Sigma/Tamron?

Some of the newer Sigma/Tamron lenses are proving to deliver higher IQ than Zeiss, etc, so while there is still a certain amount of cachet with those premium brands, is that all that they have going for them considering that they pretty much never do auto-focus and a lack of new models with competitive IQ?

And the question that is now popping up in my head is what will Leica and the makers of other "premium" lens brands do to counter the increase in IQ from Sigma/Tamron?

Some of the newer Sigma/Tamron lenses are proving to deliver higher IQ than Zeiss, etc, so while there is still a certain amount of cachet with those premium brands, is that all that they have going for them considering that they pretty much never do auto-focus and a lack of new models with competitive IQ?

I, for one, studiously avoid 'auto' anything that I can, other than two 'autos' that are wonderful: auto ISO and auto diaphragm.